It depends on their forum activity. Someone with Brawl-like activity would be expected to be on daily, while someone in a dead Dreamcast forum could get by with a lot less checking.

If you moderate pointless or duh you would have to be a computer, like Denida, and not a human, like Yeano, to be able to tag everything that needs to be tagged.

Epedemical

I'm just curious to know why you used me in your example. Is it something I have said or done in the past used in a sarcastic or mocking tone?

Twenty-five hours a day should be enough.

Seeing as how it is a volunteer thing nobody can expect anything from a moderator. Most of us try to be on enough to deal with stuff as much as we can, but it varies from person to person depending on what they are doing in thier lives.

I disagree, kiwibaby.

Since being a moderator is (or at least was if it is not still) a highly desired position, standards could be set. If a person did not meet those standards, someone who will do a better job could be given the position instead.

Of course, as of right now, not much can be expected. It is kind of a "supply and demand" issue... Except it should be "ability to supply" which affects "demand."

The whole mod thing, from rules set, what gets tagged, when to ban, how often mods should be on is just various shades of grey.

Very true, PJH.

Yeano, the question was how much a moderator MUST be on..........

They can be on as long or as short as they like but I do think some moderators should be stripped of there mod-ship if they are rarley on anymore, especially in the busy forums.

I think only Mike and Ragu can check to see who is on and who is not. Most just say the same excuse which is "I do get on of course. I, just aww, I just never post. Yes, never. Never post. Not never get on because I do get on. Always. Yeah."

You can basically tell who is lying and who is not by that really. You don't have to be psychic to tell when someone is gone for months at a time.